Sweeping changes to Florida's child support laws were passed by a Senate panel on Tuesday, despite emotional testimony from many ex-wives warning that the move would ruin the lives of many women and their families.
The legislation (SB 668), which would eliminate permanent alimony, aims to provide judges with guidelines and a formula for determining the amount and duration of alimony, as well as conditions under which a change to an award can be made.
The Florida Bar's Family Law Section supports the alimony changes, arguing they will provide more consistency in cases where rulings have varied widely from judge to judge.
But the opponents smell a rat.
“Proponents of this bill say it will provide legal certainty, and it certainly will,” said Barbara DeVane, lobbyist for the National Organization for Women. “It will certainly push thousands of women and their children into poverty.”
A dozen women who attended Monday's Judiciary Committee meeting were outraged as the panel debated the bill for about 15 minutes before passing it by a 6-4 vote. The bill was initially on the calendar but was postponed until the end of a two-hour hearing.
“The finish line has not yet been reached,” said Judiciary Chairman Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, R-Miami, as he huddled with many of the angry crowd.
Florida lawmakers have been trying to crack down on the state's controversial child support and custody laws for several years.
Recent legislation advancing in House and Senate committees would create new guidelines for paying alimony based on the length of a marriage and the income of both spouses.
“This will provide a framework for judges,” said Tom Sasser, a West Palm Beach attorney and chair of the Florida Bar's family law section, which supports the support changes in the Senate bill but not the child custody provisions.
“Right now there is extreme variation from county to county or judge to judge in the way alimony is rewarded,” he said. “We try to set boundaries. But they are not immutable.”
Under the maintenance law, the benefits would be based on the spouses' income and would typically reflect 25 to 75 percent of the length of the marriage. Alimony can be modified or terminated if income changes, a recipient enters into a “supportive relationship,” or the payor retires.
It also allows judges to deviate from the guidelines.
But the changes are being opposed by many women who argue they would harm those who gave up their jobs to raise children. Permanent alimony helps a spouse maintain their lifestyle rather than struggling and trying to get back into the workforce after years of raising children, opponents of the bills said.
Karen Librizzi, 58, of Bradenton, told the Judiciary Committee that her 28-year marriage failed after she spent her career helping her husband run a restaurant business and raise their children.
She said he earned more than $300,000 a year when he emptied the family's bank accounts and left them to a younger woman, plunging them into deeper debt as she disputes the terms of her support.
“I have no savings. No retirement. No social security,” said Librizzi, who said returning to work would be impossible at her age. “I do not have anything.”
The Senate proposal also includes a controversial custody provision that would instruct courts to assume that it is in a child's best interest to share time equally between parents.
The House of Representatives is considering this issue separately, and the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar would prefer to handle the child shared placement provision.
“Why the change? What is the real purpose of this? asked Carey Hoffman of Wellington. “Fifty-fifty may be in the best interest of the parent, not the best interest of the child.”
The law eliminates many types of alimony familiar to couples. Bridging, rehabilitation and permanent maintenance payments would be abolished, as would permanent maintenance payments.
“I'm not opposed to guidelines that are intended to help a judge decide what's most fair for a family,” said Robin Patrowicz, a Mount Dora attorney. “But I don’t think you can put people in a box. Many of these changes will harm women in their 50s, 60s and 70s.”
But those who support the changes say they seek to standardize alimony payments across Florida and eliminate terms that are in many cases misleading. They point out that permanent maintenance can be changed whenever a divorced couple's situation changes drastically.
Supporters said the legislation aims to create a “more consistent” framework for judges and bring certainty to the divorce process.
The measure would also allow alimony payers to request payment changes if their divorced spouses receive a 10 percent income increase. Opponents warn that lower-income women could be forced to hire lawyers and dragged back to court if they receive modest raises.
While supporters of the bill argue that the standard is fair, critics say the 10 percent limit is not based on economic analysis. An attempt by Sen. Darren Soto, D-Orlando, on Tuesday to create a study commission on the state's child support laws rather than act this year was quickly rejected by the panel.
Gov. Rick Scott vetoed a 2013 alimony bill because it would have applied to divorces that had already been granted. That retroactivity was later repealed, but legislation on both issues failed in the acrimonious 2015 session when Sen. Tom Lee, R-Brandon, was unable to reach a compromise with House Speaker Ritch Workman, R-Melbourne, who opposed the bill expressed custody provisions.
The Senate's push on child-sharing issues complicates recent efforts. The House is considering the custody provision in a separate bill from the child support proposal.
Proponents of so-called shared parenting laws argue that children are better served if they can spend an equal amount of time with both parents.
They oppose laws that grant custody to one parent except in cases where there is a history of abuse or substance abuse. Opponents say judges need flexibility to make custody arrangements that are in the best interests of children.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE MAINTENANCE BILL
Comments are closed.